Raymond Ibrahim: Made in Our Image: The Allure of ‘Moderate Muslims’

One of the greatest problems with the much cherished “moderate/radical” Muslim dichotomy is that it’s entirely based on Western assumptions that have nothing to do with the realities of Islam.

This came out in a study published in Arabic (my recent translation here):

Islamic researchers are agreed that what the West and its followers call “moderate Islam” and “moderate Muslims” is simply a slur against Islam and Muslims, a distortion of Islam, a rift among Muslims, a spark to ignite war among them. They also see that the division of Islam into “moderate Islam” and “radical Islam” has no basis in Islam—neither in its doctrines and rulings, nor in its understandings or reality.

In keeping with various disturbingpolls , the study found that everything associated with “radical Islam”—adherence to Islamic law (Sharia), subordinate position for women and non-Muslims, draconian punishments, jihad to spread Islam, and opposition to democracy—is a reflection of authentic Islam.

Objectively speaking—from a doctrinal, historic, and even contemporary perspective—such observations are hard to deny. Yet the idea of the “moderate Muslim” continues to allure and resonate with many in the West.

Why?

Because growing numbers of Western people are unaware that they belong to a distinct civilization and unique heritage. Rather, they arrogantly see themselves as the culmination of all human history—supposed enlightened thinkers who’ve left all cultural and religious baggage behind. (Such was the thesis of one much touted book, the prophecy of which remains unfulfilled: The End of History and the Last Man.)

Forgotten (or suppressed) is that Western civilization did not develop in a vacuum. All values prized by the modern West—religious freedom, tolerance, humanism, gender equality, monogamy—are inextricably rooted to Judeo-Christian principles which, over the course of some 2,000 years, have had a profound influence on Western epistemology, society and culture. While they are now taken for granted and seen as “universal,” it’s not for nothing that these values were born and nourished in Christian—not Islamic, Buddhist, Hindu, Confucian, or pagan—nations.

This is why there are no “moderate” and “radical” Christians. Catholic, Orthodox, or Protestant, Christians don’t have to “moderate” their religion to coexist peacefully in the secular West. The teachings of their holy book comport quite well with the laws governing society (unsurprisingly so, since many of these laws are based on the principles of that book).

All this is missed by those ignorant of the spiritual and intellectual roots of Western civilization. They embrace notions of relativism and multiculturalism, the idea that all religions and cultures are the same and, more subtly, that they are destined to develop like the West, which is no longer seen as a distinct culture but rather the end point of all cultures.

If the boons of Western civilization are not a distinct product of Christian principles, then they must be standard for and appreciable to all civilizations. According to this view, the Muslim is ultimately an embryonic Westerner. Whatever his religion seems to say—whatever he says—surely he appreciates the need to practice it privately, respect religious freedom, gender equality, and so on. Thus is he made “in our image” (except, of course, we forget the roots of “our image”).

Overlooked is that the Muslim has his own unique and ancient worldview and set of principles—which in turn prompt behavior that is deemed “radical” by Western standards (falsely assumed “universal” standards).

Such thinking is further arrogant and ethnocentric—two things that liberals always warn against yet constantly do. While the conservative acknowledges that Islam has its own principles, the liberal ignores these, believing instead that Muslims “are just like us.” This view, which arrogantly brushes aside Islam’s role in the Muslim’s life, doesn’t seem ethnocentric because the “us” is not believed to be particular (Western or Christian) but universal. Western egoism has gotten to the point that whenever Muslims behave in “radical” ways that are antithetical to Western standards—but consistent with traditional Islam—they are dismissed as mentally insane.

Faith in moderate Islam is faith in the notion that a human can be both secular and Muslim at the same time. Portraying what at root is a Christian paradigm as “universal,” and then applying it to an alien culture like Islam, is doomed to failure. Christians can and always have lived and thrived in secular or even anti-Christian environments because Christian teachings transcend the law and render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s and unto God what is God’s.

Conversely, Islam and the law are one and the same; without the law Islam is meaningless. The Arabic word Islam literally means “submit.” Submit to what? Allah’s commandments as codified in Sharia and derived from the Koran (literal words of Allah) and Hadith (words and deeds of Islam’s prophet Muhammad). And these commandments—from death to the apostate and blasphemer, to jihad and subjugation for the infidel—are anything but “Western.”

(Note: There are of course Muslims who fit into secular societies. But that’s because they are not observant of Islam—and not because they are observant of some sort of “moderate Islam.” This is key. “There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam,” as Turkish president Erdogan famously pointed out. Simply being named Muhammad does not make one Muslim any more than being named John makes one Christian.)

In the final analysis, “moderate Islam” is really nothing less than an Islam without Islam—or “Western Islam,” an oxymoron—explaining why it is viewed with great scorn outside the West (even London’s first Muslim mayor disparagingly refers to moderate Muslims as “Uncle Toms”). The idea that Muslims can be true to their religion and yet naturally fit into Western society is false—and built on an equally false premise: that Christianity somehow also had to moderate itself to fit into a secular society—when in fact, Christian principles, which are so alien to Islam, were fundamental to the creation of the West.

Comments

What every American need to keep in mind is, all People following the prophet of Muhammad and the Sharia Laws, if you ask them if they want to keep Sharia Laws, all will say yes. So that alone should get them all deported from the USA.

We are not going to have two sets of laws in USA.

If their law say they can kill your child because of honor , then what happens to the law that was to protect him/her and you ? That is why they all need to be deported ..

If you take them to court they demand to be judge by their laws and they will walk away free because it was a honor killing.. So where is the justice for your child who was killed by a Sharia Law , where is that Justice for you ???

I say deport them all and we will not have to give these Muslims any more money.. Imagine the money USA could save deporting all of them out ?

1) FAZ & PO: Out of ~1 million ‘asylum seekers’ 54 (fifty four) have so far been employed. 50 of these with the federal postal service in the position of low skilled laborers. Explanation for the failure: Many are illiterate, even in their own lingo, and completely unskilled.

2) A German scientist for political & sociological research by name of Prof. Bassam Tibi (he is of Syrian extraction/origin, but fully assimilated) has completely condemned gov. policies. He said the we (the Germans) will face a disaster and catastrophic times. He cited the case of the town of Göttingen, he said it was a very pretty, dreamy and idyllic place. A little paradise for universities and students, of which usually ~20% were foreign. He then said: “Now the place is the pits, it looks like a mid eastern refugee camp.” He further said that all this has become unbearable for *us* (the Germans) and that all this is the result of a single, irresponsible woman. (The way he phrased it, was that she, Merkel, is unfit for office.) He said that the community of Göttingen is shattered. I think he studied there. He complained that this is not even debated in the Bundestag, and stated that he never spoke to a refugee with any qualification, not a single doctor nor engineer. Instead, he said they are practically without exception peasants from the country side. He said further that this is not like the US-American immigration were applicants are selected according to their skills, but instead *we* (the Germans) are faced with a demographic avalanche of alien, hostile settlers. (Just to remind you: He was born in Syria and came as a child to Germany). He then illustrated a case of Somalian “refugees” – FROM OHIO! The head of the family stated that he didn’t like it in the US *because he has to work there*! He is already for three years in Germany and neither he, nor any member of his family speaks any German. But this guy gets now more money from the German state per month than he (the by now retired Professor Bassam Tibi) gets in his paid up, earned pension!

Nigel Farage, the leader of UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party), has resigned on account that he had achieved what he wanted to achieve. Now “he wants his life back.”
WOW! THERE REALLY ARE DECENT, UPRIGHT POLITICIANS LEFT!
=======================================================
Who would have guessed?

Charli Main says: “…Nigel Farage could have well of retired to soon. He should of waited until Britain is ACTUALLY OUT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION before deciding to put his feet up.”

Indeed so, 100% in agreement, isn’t over yet.

Also, it is true that the House of Commons is not bound by any referendum what so ever, UK law, not EU. They can *simply ignore* that, if they so wish. All we have is the will of the people expressed, and if Parliament doesn’t like it – tough sh…t! So much for the will of the people.

On the other hand, given the support of the media and Cameroun’s (announced) resignation, it may get through. Even though the pro-EU MP’s outnumber the antis. We’ll see, let’s hope for the best.

Elites are working to make this no a yes. Everywhere , medias say that people were not enough informed, that the less educated , the country , vote for the Brexit and the highly educated , know all peoples werefor EU etc…

Since Ireland and Scotland were more for the EU than England except London town , someone suggest that United Kingdom was Kingdom but not so much uniited after all.

Excellent DFD. I’m sure you would agree that Raymond’s piece should be compulsory reading for Western politicians and academics.
Re the employability of refugees, there is a comment somewhere from an in-depth interview with a Syrian refugees. The young man seemed a bit ‘dim’ and on closer questioning admitted that his family was quite well off in Syria with older brothers who were employed. The message was that this dimwit had been told by his family to push off to Europe as he was a burden and embarrassment at home. I’ll link to it if I can locate.
Wouldn’t mind betting that his parents are first cousins.

One thing we JW readers might do is simply drop from our conversations and communications any reference to “moderate” Islam or “radicalized” Islamist. Neither expression expresses truth. I’m sure we can articulate why.

The more we know about Islam, the faster it will implode! The Muslim living in the West must realize that the fruits of Islam are death and suffering, that is, the real, unadulterated Islam. The ideology will, eventually, dissipate into the oblivion because it has no roots in logic. Everything Islam is dubious, negative and destructive. Just one look at the Muslim protesters of the West clearly shows the barbaric attitude towards civilized cultures – a jealousy? Not being allowed to integrated, the only other step forward is to destroy what they are not allowed to have!

well they are not following the tenets of what Jesus taught. Jesus said we are to LOVE not only our brothers and sisters ( fellow followers of Christ ) but also our neighbors( those who live in society with us) but also OUR ENEMIES (those who hate us and oppose Christ).
Radical Christians would then look like Mother Theresa of Calcutta, or Franklin Graham of Samaritans Purse, and countless thousands of missionaries who have served and given their lives to preach Christ and to serve ( not conquer) hostile people

But Jesus also accepted the old testament and therefore implicitly “God Hates Fags”. Maybe you would say that the WBC is not really Christian, but that sounds a bit like Muslims claiming Isis is not really islamic.

No matter how hard the left tries to exonerate Islam for Orlando murders by blaming conservative Christianity, the murder of homosexuals is a such an incredibly routine occurrence in Islam that it is a moot point to attempt such a false equivalence.

“But Jesus also accepted the old testament and therefore implicitly “God Hates Fags”. Maybe you would say that the WBC is not really Christian, but that sounds a bit like Muslims claiming Isis is not really islamic.”

OK, let’s take all that as truth – the Christian God hates homosexuals and they’ll burn in hell. Christians are taught to hate the sin and respect, and pray for, the sinners. Is that how the WBC acts?

But Jesus also accepted the old testament and therefore implicitly “God Hates Fags”.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not true …

And “Got Questions” offers some answers, from a Biblical perspective, to what Klaas has stated.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Please note – we are reluctant to even use the term “fags.” We intend no offense or insult. We only use the word in response to the group which promotes the “God hates fags” concept.

Question: “Does God hate fags?”

Answer: There is a “church” in the United States that promotes the slogan “God hates fags!” This group pickets gay parades, gay bars, gay events, etc. This group has even picketed the funerals of gay people, shouting to the attendees that the gay person is now burning in hell for being a “fag.” On its website, this group has a counter which updates daily how long a certain gay person has supposedly been in hell. Recently, the “God hates fags” group has begun protesting at military funerals, claiming that the soldier was killed because the USA is supporting the homosexual agenda. Is there any truth to their claims?

This is a reply to “Jay Boo” above, but since this would be too many levels of replies I will do it this way.

Please do not confuse the issue. I brought up Westboro Baptist Church as an example of Christian radicalism, NOT in connection with Orlando. The Orlando massacre was an islamic atrocity, no doubt about it. But please do not pretend that WBC has nothing to do with Christianity. Do not use the term “false equivalence” when it is you who is making the equivalence.

I agree that there is no moderate Islam (although fortunately most muslims are moderates). I agree that most of christianity IS moderate. But I do not agree that radical christianity does not exist.

I challenge you to find even one verse in the Bible where Jesus instructed His faithful to commit murder & mayhem in His name, and I will pay you $1,000,000.00!

Of course I don’t have a million bucks, but I also know that you’ll never find even one verse from the Bible where Jesus promoted a tactic of violence; and anyone committing crimes in the name of Jesus are doing so disobediently, since this is NOT what Jesus Christ taught. And the *vast* majority of Christians are not disobedient in this regard, and you would be hard-pressed to find any that actually do. So it’s safe to say that they are not *true* Christians. Duh.

Juxtapose the teachings of Jesus with that of ‘prophet’ muhammad, and you will find countless verses in the unholy quran instructing mohammedans to commit murder & mayhem in the name of allah (satan). No shortage of passages there.

Essentially your point is not true–based upon what Jesus actually taught His followers. Please stick to the facts.

” All values prized by the modern West—religious freedom, tolerance, humanism, gender equality, monogamy—are inextricably rooted to Judeo-Christian principles”
Can you explain what is “Judaeo-Christian” about any of these things (with the exception of monogamy)? They are quite contrary to Christianity and Judaism as historically understood. Nearly all Christians today, at least in the West, are “moderates” in that they have rejected those elements of traditional Christianity which are contrary to the values of modern secular society. Most Muslims, of course, have not abandoned those Islamic beliefs which are contrary to modern secular values; why this is so, and what can be done about it, should be the prime concern of those opposed to Islamism and jihad.

Christianity traditionally taught that the Jews were all guilty of Christ’s death and should be kept segregated and humiliated, that women were more sinful than men and had been placed under their authority by God, that it was legitimate to take non-Christian slaves, and that heretics should be deprived of free speech and their meetings broken up.

All four of these “traditional teachings” you mention grew out of a cultural failure to adhere to the explicit teachings of Christian scripture. These are perfect examples of reasons for Reformation and lesser forms of corrective action within Christianity. There is no such corrective in Islam. One can never honestly equate the two.

If you were actually truthful you would not need such a moniker to add favorable prejudice supporting the veracity your comments.

After seeing the photo above and reading the accompanying article exposing the horrendous MSM myth about the “moderate Muslim” I am reminded about the layers of hateful filth in the Koran and Hadith.
You seemed to come up with a different conclusion.

Moderate Muslim and moderate Islam are totally fictitious narratives developed by the Western leaders, media and academia and some “experts” to sooth their Muslim citizens and the Muslim countries. Howver this totally belies the truth but they are happy with that. When Turkey’s Erdogan says there is no moderate Islam or radical Islam – Islam is Islam they how the narrative of the West gets traction is beyond me.

The question I have for the proponents of the “moderate” narrative is according to this where does Mohammad the inventor of the “religion” fits in ? Was he a moderate or a radical? Yeah – they will call him a moderate even with the bloodshed on his hands – being personally taking part in beheading of 800 Yathrib(Medina) Jews! But who remembers it – even Muslims want us to forget it!

Good morning Mr. Ibrahim,
I am puzzled by your statement that there are of course Muslims who fit into secular societies because they are not observant of Islam.
To my mind if they are “not observant of Islam” then they are not Muslims…are you not continuing to describe them as Muslim simply because they originate from a neighbourhood/culture in which the dominant religion is/was[if they are immigrants] Islam…similar to calling somebody “Christian” because they originated in what used to be called Christendom?
regards,
graham watson

Graham – Charles Spurgeon, the great Victorian Baptist preacher, referring to merely church-going ‘Christians’ who ignored the Faith for the other six days, said “I can be born in a stable & live in stable, but that doesn’t make me a horse.”

No such thing as moderate muslims. A Few months ago a muslim woman wearing no head scarf told me after the terrorist attacks in Paris:
1) they should have killed the men working in the police and army!!!
2) What we need she said is a man like Hitler to rule the world
Great for a “moderate” muslim…….

If only liberals and the Left could get over their prejudices and accept that our religious and cultural history have made us what we are today, they might begin to understand what this article is saying.

But they can’t and they won’t, so they remain in their state of ignorance, with no hope of enlightenment, except when external, and possibly extremely harsh, reality knocks them out of their stupor to face what is in front of them.

The greatest irony is that the much vaunted backlash against islam will probably come from these very people, when they discover the horrors of islam, and realize how completely they have been lied to and how they have been duped.

Extreme-Left Democrats faced a dilemma when gays and Hispanics were murdered in the name of Islam. They did not want to be seen as throwing gays and Hispanics under the bus in favor of Muslims so they staged a public display sit-in and complained about gun control rather than admit that they sold out some of their key voters by not talking about Islam.

”In the final analysis, “moderate Islam” is really nothing less than an Islam without Islam—or “Western Islam,” an oxymoron—explaining why it is viewed with great scorn outside the West (even London’s first Muslim mayor disparagingly refers to moderate Muslims as “Uncle Toms”). The idea that Muslims can be true to their religion and yet naturally fit into Western society is false—and built on an equally false premise: that Christianity somehow also had to moderate itself to fit into a secular society—when in fact, Christian principles, which are so alien to Islam, were fundamental to the creation of the West.”

So here again, trying to be “nice” to Muslims by regarding the majority of them as “moderate”
is to Muslims yet another infidel conspiracy to divide and conquer Islam, and to ignite war (must be Jews behind it). Because, clearly for those who can still see, it has no basis in Islam or reality. But that’s our story and we’re are sticking to it. Because it feels better, because “our” Muslims tell us it is so, and because “we need them as allies in the fight against radicalism”…

The notion that Allah’s laws are tangential to Islam and being a Muslim….I once heard a tv talking head dismiss as absurd the notion most Muslims want anything to do with “radical extremism” such as shari’a law. Such people are incapable of understanding what Islam even is. And they count on those non-observant Muslims, make-believe Muslims, apostate Muslims, and most especially, lying Muslims.
Moderate Islam is a Fata Morgana, a mirage, like fairy castles in the sky, or imaginary lands at sea to lure sailors to their doom. It is also non-existant water in the (bone strewn) desert of Islam.

I strongly doubt Liberals and the left will get over their ignorance, such is the level of their brainwashing. In the UK the universities to which our impressionable youth are sent are overwhelmingly peopled by lecturers espousing and enforcing the Liberal view. Teachers throughout the education system have been brainwashed, trust me I work in it. Indeed the merest hint that one is not in their pact mentality brings on immediate accusations of racism, Islamophobia etc. The degree of brainwashing, which is of course passed on to school children, is staggering and largely hidden to those outside the education system.
There is no surprise in the age differences of the differing sides of the Brexit voters, those educated in a system that encouraged people to think for themselves did so some 20 years ago.
The future is staggeringly worrying for the UK.

The Left needs to wake up.
Other than abortion on demand and hatred of Christians and Jews, what does Islam offer the Lefties?

Abuse of women
Child marriage
Legalized rape and honor killings for any woman not wearing a hijab.
Death sentence for homosexuals and apostates.
All those imported wine sipping Lefties will be disappointed when their fine crystal wine glasses are smashed along with their empty skulls.

I predict, Jay Boo, the Western Left will never wake up. The Left suffers from irreversible stupidity. There are of course some leftists who cease to be leftist but that is a different matter, rather like a Neo-Nazi ceasing to be a Neo-Nazi or a KKK member ceasing to be such a member. But just as there is no such thing as a Neo-Nazi or a KKK person waking up as long as they remain beholden to their belief system, so is it the case with Leftism. With Islam too of course——all that really works is to leave Islam completely. Can’t fix rotten, you know.

Haven’t been around, for my wife and I have just come back from 10 wonderful days in southern Italy.

I wish to demur from Dr. Ibrahim’s generally spot-on post. There are indeed radical Christians and moderate ones; stronger ones and weaker ones. One serious issue we’ve had with Western Christianity is that a little less than two centuries of liberal theology has seriously weakened the churches. It’s why we’re coming to a point where the conscientious Christian (and respect the Jews though I may, I’ll let someone else speak for them) may well find himself between a rock and a hard place. As Klaass pointed out above, the Bible does indeed teach against homosexuality, for executing murderers, and admitting that one’s theology makes a huge difference. I, for one, have made no bones over standing with the Bible over against our current cultural consensus.

On the other hand, I agree that Western liberals are far too arrogant in their assumption that they have freed themselves from the theological and other intellectual “shackles” of the past. The whole idea of progress in Western thought is a legacy from the Bible and Augustine of Hippo, who saw history as moving from creation to fall to redemption to consummation. Among the cultured despisers, it is said that Bertrand Russell once criticized the Marxists for a cosmic optimism which only Theism could justify–and he was right.

From my Sicilian trip, I learned that the coasts of that island were largely uninhabited until the Barbary pirates were put down in the early 19th century (and hence many Sicilian villages perch on STEEP mountains). Hence, I now wish to examine some of the state papers dealing with our American campaigns against Morocco, Algiers, TUnis, and Tripoli to see how Jefferson’s administration saw things. I have a suspicion that some of our wishful thinking about the world of Islam and the facile assumption that our secular liberalism has somehow risen above the fray may have a regrettably deeper root in our political culture than I would like.

Hi,
Sounds like you had a great time and it’s a part of the world that’s high on my list of places to go.

Maybe someone could organise an historical ‘battle field tour’ of sites where islam has ‘touched’ the West.

Also:
Anything that is wrong with the Bible that we have been handed down is for us to address.

We do not attack and abuse others on it’s instruction. Neither do we claim it to be the final and irrefutable direct words of God.

It is, in part, a record of what Jesus said and did, and also an account of the background and context of His life.

Of course some have placed divine significance on the text, and wars have been fought and cruelties enacted, but Christianity is about the living God and the meaning and spirit of His words.

My opinion, sermon over.

Back to the history of places like Sicily.
What muzzies may find out soon, is what we already know – Be careful what you wish for! And their desire to have us recognise their ‘contribution’ to Western history may not have the effect that they hope for.
.
The quicker people know about their ‘contribution’ the better for us all.

Quite a good and important article. This foundational difference between Western Civilization (vis-a-vis Christianity and Judaism) and Islam needs to be consistently highlighted.

But what I especially like about Raymond’s article is that it raises the even more fundamental question, is there such a thing as universal truth? In other words, did Christianity invent the values it prizes or did it simply codify them from some deeper, universal source? If it codified them, why then did Islam go in the completely opposite direction? If Christianity invented them, then Islam too invented its own prized values, in which case we’re left with the age-old question of “who’s to say who’s right?”, i.e., the Leftist’s position of moral equivalence.

There is actually some excellent scholarship and scientific research on this question for those who may be interested. Raymond is correct; Western civilization most definitely did not develop in a vacuum. However, neither did Christianity, Islam nor any other religion, philosophy, ideology or epistemology. The answer is both: there are universal truths about human nature, but these truths are also shaped, directed, developed, impeded, distorted and sometimes even secondarily transformed into their complete opposites, by previously unrecognized and/or under-appreciated geographical and psycho-social factors.

For those who’d like to know how it is something so ruthless and hateful as Sharia/Islam could have developed in the first place, I highly recommend an extraordinary book called Saharasia: The 4000 BCE Origins of Child Abuse, Sex-Repression, Warfare and Social Violence, in the Deserts of the Old World (Evidence for a Worldwide, Climate-Linked Geographical Pattern in Human Behavior). You can find the book on Amazon. Also, here’s a link to an excellent detailed summary of the book by it’s author: http://www.orgonelab.org/saharasia_en.htm

I found you comment interesting and stimulating. Especially, “the even more fundamental question, is there such a thing as universal truth? In other words, did Christianity invent the values it prizes or did it simply codify them from some deeper, universal source? ” I strongly feel there is such a thing as Universal Truth, and that indeed Christianity conforms to it to a greater extent than most other religions. In fact, stimulated by your comment, I just wrote a whole page in response, but after saving it for later, have deleted it from here as it requires more thought than I have time to put into it at the moment. Meanwhile, I have opened up the link you offered and now will go read that.

“I strongly feel there is such a thing as Universal Truth, and that indeed Christianity conforms to it to a greater extent than most other religions”

l don’t think so. Christianity contributed [although most of it’s teachings have been corrupted and misunderstood IMO], obviously, but the lndian and Buddhist scriptures were much deeper and Spiritually Higher, l’d say. Also, a lot of advancements in civilization and morality had nothing to do with Religion. ln fact religion for the most part has only held us back, not propelled us forward.

So now I have read the paper you linked to, the conclusion of which is…

“Given the new evidence presented here, patrism, to include its child-abusive, female-subordinating, sex-repressive, and destructively aggressive components, is best and most simply explained as a contractive emotional and cultural response to the traumatic famine conditions that first developed when Saharasia dried up after c.4000 BCE, a response which subsequently spread out of the desert through the diffusion of traumatized and affected peoples, and their altered social institutions.”

That paper indirectly describes Islam and its origins in the Patrism in Saharasia, c.4000 BCE.

A year or so ago I had an opportunity leave Canada to work in California for several months, and during that time had an opportunity to see deserts up close and personal for the first time in my life. What was most evident to me was how the flora and fauna had evolved under the harsh conditions found in the deserts of the Mojave. All the plants were armoured with tough skin, spikes and thorns. The animals – such as the scorpions and snakes and spiders were venomous. It was certainly a tough neighbourhood! Now after reading your article I can easily imagine patrism could arise from such a place.

Thanks for sharing your comments and following up on the link. The SAHARAISA paper and book describe a truly remarkable and “game-changing” discovery regarding the origins of sadistic human violence. They also show that Sharia/Islam is, in essence, the codification of long term, desert-induced social change and its attending emotional trauma; a brutal desert-driven ideology that basically provides legal justification for the expression of the absolute worst that emotionally sick human beings have to offer.

Thanks again – I’m grateful for your response and I appreciate your follow-up.

Western liberal-progressive types desperately want to think well of Islam, but that is because they have not read Islam’s foundational texts and judge Islam merely by the ‘nice Muslim’ at work. They have probably never asked the ‘nice Muslim’ what he thinks about Israel, about Jews, about Christianity, about the war in Iraq, about the Mohammed Cartoons, about Sharia punishments like stoning or any other controversial matter involving Islam. Western liberal-progressives have not looked at the opinion surveys of Muslims.

In such an atmosphere of smug assumptions, the liberal-progressives haven’t an actual clue about what Islam teaches or what Muslims actually think.

While mostly on track, Ibraham misses a cardinal point when he states that, unlike Muslims, “Christians don’t have to “moderate” their religion to coexist peacefully in the secular West”.

Increasingly, voices on the Left are heard stating that “churches” cannot be considered “Christian” if they do not embrace the prevailing liberal points of view.

For instance, they will argue, “God is love and therefore would not limit marriage to the union of one man and one woman, thus denying love to others”. Anyone who does not agree with this cannot be considered to be a Christian and therefore cannot call upon protection under the First Amendment.

Liberals tend to (re)define a religion based on their own precepts rather than those find in a religion’s scriptures. They subsequently assert that anyone who does not ascribe to their re-defined view of the religion is deemed to not be a true believer.

“Within scripture, the blame [for the death of Christ] falls on to the Romans.” Wrong. 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 “For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Judea that are in Christ Jesus. You suffered from your own countrymen the very things they suffered from the Jews, who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and drove us out as well. They are displeasing to God and hostile to all men, hindering us from telling the Gentiles how they may be saved.”
It is true that the New Testament never actually commands persecution of the Jews, but that is not surprising given the situation of the church at the time of writing. Discriminatory laws against the Jews existed in the Roman empire long before the rise of Islam: some of the Islamic laws concerning dhimmis are modelled on them.

Popular Categories

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.